[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10280-S10285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1997
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside just for the consideration of an amendment
offered by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Amendment No. 5240
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of the
bill, and I thank my two colleagues who, for various reasons, at this
point in time have an interest in the floor procedure and have
permitted me, as a matter of Senatorial courtesy, to proceed with the
following amendment which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 5240. On page 53, beginning on line 23,
strike ``and in compliance with the reprogramming
guidelines of the appropriate Committee of the House and
Senate.''
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to commend the
Appropriations Committee, subcommittee Chairman Shelby and Senator
Kerrey for their efforts in including funding for security requirements
in both the new construction and repair and alterations categories for
the Federal buildings program of the General Services Administration in
the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, postal appropriations bill.
The current security environment is uncertain and variable.
Unforeseen circumstances, and events can radically change the
requirements for security expenditures in real time and at a moment's
notice as witnessed by recent tragic events in our Nation.
Current language in the Senate appropriations bill requires
compliance with formal reprogramming processes in order to use funds
for security purposes. While this requirement is an appropriate check
on security expenditures, and I commend my colleagues for their swift
action in this area in the past, I remain concerned that during a
congressional recess, a delay in the implementation of reprogramming
measures for security could impede actions necessary for the immediate
protection of our Federal work force.
My amendment would allow GSA to use any funds previously appropriated
for repairs and alterations and building operations and rental space to
meet minimum standards for security upon notification of the
Appropriations Committee of the House and Senate that such a
determination had been made.
I would also request that should my amendment be agreed to,
clarifying report language be added stating the following:
The Committee has included requested funding for security
as a line item in both New Construction and Repairs and
Alterations in addition to amounts requested in Basic
Repairs. A provision authorizing the use of other repair
funds has also been included to ensure that the GSA can
respond quickly to safety and security requirements as they
are identified. Safety and security concerns are to be
addressed as a top priority in using capital funds provided
in the bill.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, with oversight responsibility over the General Services
Administration, I have been pleased with GSA's actions to date in
meeting an enhanced level of security at GSA controlled buildings and
facilities. I would like to commend the Appropriations Committee for
actions taken following the Oklahoma City bombing in the fiscal year
1995 legislation, continuing reprogramming efforts approved by both the
authorizers and appropriators in fiscal year 1996, and now in the
Treasury, postal appropriations bill that we have before us for fiscal
year 1997.
I think that all of my colleagues would agree that in light of the
new threatening environment we are under, resulting from incidents of
domestic terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing, providing a safe and
secure environment for our Federal work forces and visitors to our
Federal buildings should be the highest priority.
That is the intention of this amendment. I am pleased to learn from
the distinguished manager, the Senator from Nebraska, it appears it is
acceptable. And Senator Shelby has, likewise, indicated that.
Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, both Senator Shelby and I have looked at
this amendment. We agree it is a good amendment. We appreciate the
Senator from Virginia bringing it to our attention, and we are willing
to accept it.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5240) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Mr. President.
I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
committee amendment, and the Kassebaum amendment thereto, be laid aside
in status quo. In explanation of that unanimous consent request,
Senator Kassebaum is, I believe, in a meeting having to do with the FDA
reform. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth about how to
handle these two amendments. The Senator from Oregon is here and is
continuing to pursue his desire in this effort. He has been willing to
have these set aside for now so we can take up other issues, and
amendments can perhaps be agreed to, and perhaps other amendments can
be debated and voted on, if necessary. We will continue to work to see
how we can resolve that. I make that unanimous consent request.
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to
object, I just want it understood that I have spent the last couple of
hours trying to work, in a bipartisan way, to address this, to address
the budgetary concerns. I want the majority leader, Senator Lott, to
understand that I have no interest in prolonging this. I do want to
protect the rights of these vulnerable patients and get that done
today. But I have no desire to prolong this.
Mr. President, we are going to continue, as the majority leader
requested,
[[Page S10281]]
to work to try to fashion something that is acceptable. We thought we
had something a minute ago, but, apparently, we have some more work to
do.
With that, I withdraw my reservation. I appreciate the majority
leader trying to help us by setting that aside.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, was that request agreed to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I thought the Senator from Alabama was rising
to speak on the request.
Is there objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has been done.
Amendment No. 5224
(Purpose: To limit the use of funds to provide for Federal agencies to
furnish commercially available property or services to other Federal
agencies)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] proposes an amendment
numbered 5224.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VI add the following:
Sec. 646. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of
the funds appropriated by this or any other Act may be used
by the Office of Management and Budget, or any other agency,
to publish, promulgate, or enforce any policy, regulation, or
circular, or any rule or authority in any other form, that
would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially
available property or service to any other department or
agency of government unless the policy, regulation, circular,
or other rule or authority meets the requirements prescribed
under subsection (b).
(b)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations applicable
to any policy regulation, circular, or other rule or
authority referred to in subsection (a).
(2) The requirements prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A requirement for a comparison between the cost of
providing the property or service concerned through the
agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or
service through the private sector.
(B) A requirement for cost and performance benchmarks
relating to the property or service provided relative to
comparable services provided by other government agencies and
contractors in order to permit effective oversight of the
cost and provision of such property or service by the agency
concerned or the Office of Management and Budget.
Amendment No. 5224, As Modified
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 5224), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of title VI add the following:
Sec. 646. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of
the funds appropriated by this or any other Act may be used
by the Office of Management and Budget, or any other agency,
to publish, promulgate, or enforce any policy, regulation, or
circular, or any rule or authority in any other form, that
would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially
available property or service to any other department or
agency of government unless the policy, regulation, circular,
or other rule or authority meets the requirements prescribed
under subsection (b).
(b)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations applicable
to any policy regulation, circular, or other rule or
authority referred to in subsection (a).
(2) The requirements prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A requirement for a comparison between the cost of
providing the property or service concerned through the
agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or
service through the private sector.
(B) A requirement for cost and performance benchmarks
relating to the property or service provided relative to
comparable services provided by other government agencies and
contractors in order to permit effective oversight of the
cost and provision of such property or service by the agency
concerned or the Office of Management and Budget.
(C) The regulation would not apply to contingency
operations associated with a national emergency.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to explain the amendment, if I may,
and then ask that we have a vote on it. It has to do with the Federal
Government's policy of more than 40 years that the Government should
not compete with the private sector in areas in which the private
sector can legitimately function. In fact, the Government should rely
on the private sector to supply commercially available goods and
services.
However, this policy is too often ignored. For example, the Defense
Science Board calculates that out of 850,000 full-time positions needed
to provide commercial services for the military, 640,000 are held by
Federal employees rather than private sector personnel.
I want to go back and talk about commercial services, however,
because the modification that I sent to the desk exempts emergencies
and exempts factors that are not routinely commercial completely from
the bill. There is a new administration policy that prompts this
particular amendment.
OMB has come out with a policy that grandfathers existing
Interservice Support Agreements from cost-comparison requirements. In
other words, it says if you have had this kind of Interservice Support
Agreement, it is not even necessary to inquire as to what the cost
would be if, indeed, there would be savings in the private sector.
The Interservice Support Agreements permit one Federal agency to
provide goods or services to another agency. This new policy gives
agencies until October 1, 1997, to go out and recruit business from
other agencies, without performing any cost analysis.
The administration implicitly argues that this entrepreneurial
approach to Government will save the taxpayers money--and they don't
even know what the cost comparisons are. Some examples of existing
ISSAs are: Aerial photography, mapping services, laboratory services,
printing services. Other specific examples are: A U.S. Geological
Survey was hired by the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the
High Plains Groundwater Recharge Program. The project took twice as
long and cost three times as much as the private sector standard.
In Jacksonville, FL, the Navy Public Works Division recently
completed a state-of-the-art environmental lab to provide routine
hazardous waste characterization. These services are already available
from the private sector, and the Navy intends to offer these services
now to other Government agencies.
Mr. President, this is not the concept that most of us have for
Government. It is common sense, I think, that activities that are
integral to Government, activities for emergencies, for defense,
activities such as plane wrecks and all these things, those things, of
course, are excluded under the bill. But when we are talking about
routine services that can be provided commercially in the private
sector, then they should be.
There are a few examples of direct Government competition with the
private sector. So there is a new policy that encourages the Federal
Government to compete with the private sector. I think that is
philosophically wrong. Certainly, it hurts small business. There isn't
even competition for projects --no public solicitation--the private
sector never knows if there is a need that they could fulfill.
We did this, by the way, in the Wyoming legislature when I was there.
We had a bill that said that in those areas where the function can be
commercially carried out, there ought not to be competition by the
Government, that there ought to be at least an analysis of the cost,
and a fair analysis, so these things can be done, to the extent that it
is possible, to save the taxpayers money and do it in the private
sector. Numerous studies have shown that outsourcing can save the
Government $9 billion to $10 billion annually.
Further, it seems to me that this process of having extra commercial
activities carried on by Government agencies circumvents the
appropriations process. If an agency is able to do the work for another
agency, it is likely to have more resources and employees than it
really needs to fulfill its primary mission. It may be wasting
taxpayers' resources and may need to be cut back. If an agency
appropriations is cut and it recruits business, it is circumventing the
appropriations
[[Page S10282]]
process. The amendment that we have simply indicates that none of the
dollars in this particular appropriations can be used unless, and the
rule says:
A requirement for a comparison between the cost of
providing the property or service concerned through the
agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or
service through the private sector.
It is very simple. It simply says that you have to take a look at
letting the private sector do this and get the cost of that before one
agency provides it to the Government sector for another agency.
I emphasize that we have been doing it for 40 years. This is a new
OMB policy. It is a rule for the supplemental handbook. By the way, as
to the handbook itself, I think we are going to hear--and we have heard
from one agency, the Defense Department specifically--``Well, we will
be curtailed on a number of these essential support emergency
activities.''
Let me give you the modification first of all. It makes it clear that
the amendment does not apply to national security. Furthermore, this
OMB rule has an exemption. Nothing in this amendment would change
advanced planning for contingencies; therefore, contingencies or
emergencies, such as the Value Jet crash in the Everglades. There are
two protections from that kind of thing. One is the rule itself, and
the other as the amendment to this bill.
So it just seems to me that if you believe in the idea that the
Government ought to be contained to those things that are uniquely
Government activities and that beyond that we ought to go to the
private sector, we have a broader bill that we have had for some time.
We intended to have hearings on it. The hearings have been postponed
twice--once at the request of the minority. So we have been prepared to
have hearings on the broader bill. This one simply deals with the
newest OMB supplemental handbook proposition. It says that you have to
continue to do what you have been doing; and that is consider the cost
of doing it in the private sector.
It is hard for me to imagine that anyone can object to the difficulty
of doing things that can be done in the private sector, and doing them
in the private sector if they are going to save us money. The idea that
you can't do it in an emergency is not a valid one. It is not valid
because of the handbook exemption. It is not valid because of the
modification that we have put on the bill. This kind of thing, of
course, simply expands Government.
I mentioned that we introduced S. 1724, the Freedom From Government
Competition Act. It causes the Government to go outside. It causes OMB
to study those things that are inherently governmental functions.
Senator Stevens plans to hold a hearing on this bill in September.
The Small Business Committee in the House has already held several
hearings. But this is a smaller issue. While I am delighted that
Senator Stevens will be holding hearings on the broader bill, there is
really no reason for small businesses to be caught under this Clinton
administration ISSA policy, the Interservice Support Agreement policy.
The amendment is very simple. It merely reaffirms existing law. It
would prohibit the appropriation of funds of one agency to provide
commercially available goods and services for another agency unless the
cost comparison is done and more oversight is conducted on the
agreement to provide more information about what we are doing. The
amendment will create private-sector jobs, which is what we talk about
all the time on both sides of the aisle. It will help small businesses.
It will save taxpayer dollars and make Government smaller and more
efficient.
Mr. President, the bottom line is we want Government to cost less.
This is a way to do that.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a
commonsense amendment, a good-government amendment, and a pro taxpayer
reform amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 5237
and offer it as a second-degree amendment to the pending committee
amendment, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward
amendment.
Mr. GLENN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend. Is there
objection?
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I object, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor. Is
there objection to the unanimous-consent request?
Mr. GLENN. Yes. There is objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GLENN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor. The
objection is heard. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I must oppose the amendment offered by my
colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas. The amendment would require
cost comparisons and cost and performance benchmarks before any Federal
agency can provide any other Federal agency with property or services.
I am a very strong supporter of increasing the efficiency of
Government. Much of my effort over the last few years has been devoted
to exactly that--passing the Chief Financial Officer Act, expanding
inspectors general, and with the new procurement legislation we passed
that was the work of not only the White House in the last
administration but this administration and our Governmental Affairs
Committee, as well as people in the Pentagon. So we have a track record
of working in these areas of increasing the efficiency of Government
and along with it of having a greater reliance on the private sector
which we have provided in some of the new procurement legislation for
providing goods and services to the Government.
In spite of that, I have difficulty supporting this amendment. Its
impact, I do not think, has been completely reviewed and I think it is
unnecessary and perhaps too broad. Let me go into some of that in a
little more detail.
First, I must oppose the amendment because a floor amendment on an
appropriations bill does not provide an adequate opportunity in which
to consider this far-reaching proposal, and it is, indeed, a far-
reaching proposal. The Governmental Affairs Committee, as I think the
proponent has already mentioned, actually has a hearing scheduled for
next week, September 19, on Senator Thomas' related bill, S. 1724. I
know we have had several hearings put off, and I understand that, and I
understand the frustrations of people when they do not get appropriate
hearings in committee to go ahead and opt for direct floor action. But
consideration in committee will consider that legislation that also
addresses Government and private sector issues. Consideration by the
committee with substantive jurisdiction is needed before this proposal
should be considered on the Senate floor. To bring the amendment to the
floor when the sponsor has a hearing in only 1 week before the
appropriate committee I do not feel is the best way to proceed, the
best informed way to proceed on this issue.
Second, it is my feeling, having been into some of these things over
the last several years, the amendment is unnecessary. The economy act
at section 1535 of title XXXI of the United States Code already
requires that an agency head determine that goods or services cannot be
provided as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise before
going to another agency for those goods or services. The cost and
performance requirement of the present amendment would on their face
have basically the same result as the economy act.
The relation of the amendment to the current law is exactly the sort
of
[[Page S10283]]
issue that should be discussed at a committee hearing. I think we also
need to examine the relation of the OMB regulations required by the
amendment to OMB's circular A-76 that currently governs agency cost
comparisons with private sector goods and services. To accept an
amendment in the Chamber that on its face largely duplicates existing
law and regulation is not the best way to proceed.
This overlap also concerns me with regard to the franchise fund
pilots created by the Government Management Reform Act, GMRA, of 1994,
which is Public Law 103-356. That act was a bipartisan effort of the
Governmental Affairs Committee, and it passed unanimously in the
Senate. The GMRA, the Government Management Reform Act, franchise fund
pilots open up competition between agency service providers and the
private sector for common administrative services. This program uses
basic market force principles to search for better, quicker, and
cheaper services. OMB is currently overseeing this program, and we
should not enact new legislation that would affect it until we hear
from OMB as to how this competition project is working.
My third objection to the amendment is that it is too broad. For
example, in its original version it had no exemption for national
security emergencies or danger to public health or safety.
Let me say right there that we had a letter from the Under Secretary
of the Navy, John Hamre, who is working in these areas of better
efficiency over in the Defense Department, and he felt it really gave a
lot of trouble in this particular area.
I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Under Secretary of Defense,
Washington DC, September 11, 1996.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and
General Government, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I have just learned of an amendment that
Senator Thomas is proposing to offer on the Appropriations
Bill for the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.
The amendment would require that before one federal agency
can provide a service to another agency a cost comparison for
providing the service would have to be made between the
private sector and the government agency.
I recognize that the motivations behind this amendment are
very worthwhile. We should use the private sector as much as
possible for providing services; however, the unintended
consequences of this amendment would be devastating to many
of the cross agency operations that are now being conducted.
In its current form, this amendment could cost lives and
delay essential support that has to occur immediately in time
of emergency. Had this amendment been in place in the past,
the Department of Defense (DOD) could not have transported
equipment and material immediately for such catastrophes as
Hurricane Andrew, the Oklahoma City bombing, the search for
survivors and aircraft parts following the explosion of TWA
800, and numerous earthquake, fire and flood demands that are
placed on the Department. These are extensive inter-agency
arrangements for DOD support in times of emergency that are
totally undermined by this amendment.
I strongly urge you to defer action on the amendment being
offered by Senator Thomas until you have had an opportunity
to hold a hearing on the implications of the amendment. This
proposal while well intended, has far reaching consequences
which must be studied and understood.
John J. Hamre.
Mr. GLENN. I understand though that this will be modified to
accommodate that problem. I have not seen the modification yet
specifically, but I understand that Senator Thomas has modified his
amendment to address concerns raised by the Department of Defense
concerning national emergencies and that was one of the problems. I
understand the amendment will provide an exemption for national
security contingencies. Maybe that will solve the problem, maybe it
will not, but that is a concern about the amendment, and I think the
scope of it is still unclear.
If enacted into law in its original version, the amendment would
appear to prohibit, for instance, some other things, and I do not know
whether these are covered under contingencies or not. It would appear
to prohibit the CIA from contracting with NSA or DIA, the National
Security Agency or the Defense Intelligence Agency, for classified
goods or services--for example, a spy satellite or equipment--without
performing cost comparisons and benchmarks. While OMB might try to
provide for such exemptions in the regulations required by the
amendment, the amendment, as I understood it, provides no limitations
on its comprehensive scope.
I am also concerned about the amendment's references to ``enforcing
any policy or any authority in any other form.'' I put that in quotes,
concerned about the amendment's reference to ``enforcing any policy or
any authority in any other form.''
I am not certain what this might include. It could be interpreted to
cover the budget. It would seem even to cover apportionment of funds.
After all, when OMB apportions funds, it conveys an authority to outlay
funds. How would this impact on interagency activities? I am not sure.
Maybe it would be good. Maybe it would be bad. But these terms do
concern me. I do not believe we should enact into law such an
overarching requirement, a very major piece of legislation, without
careful consideration of its scope and necessary exemptions.
The broad language of the amendment might also cover FFRDC's. Many
times agencies contract with another agency such as DOE for goods or
services to be provided by FFRDC, and this arrangement would seem to be
covered by the amendment. I do not believe the Senate has sufficiently
considered this proposal in order to subject the National Labs, the
Center for Naval Analysis, and other FFRDC's with the blanket
requirements of this amendment, and they would be affected by it. They
could not help but be affected by it.
Finally, I am concerned that there could be other situations that
this amendment would needlessly burden with reporting and study
requirements. There could be instances in which an agency contracts for
goods or services that another agency procures from other sources, even
the private sector. There are also revolving funds and many interagency
reimbursable activities that would appear to be covered by the
amendment. And to subject all such activities to the terms of this
amendment, without certainty about the impact, concerns me very much.
Again, the sponsors of the amendment may hope that OMB will provide
the right exemptions for the right cases. But the text of the amendment
is very, very comprehensive. Again, this is just another reason why I
think we should not enact into law legislative language of such broad
scope--not today, anyway.
Next week, OMB's Deputy Director for Management, John Koskinen, will
testify before the Governmental Affairs Committee on various OMB and
other agency initiatives to increase agency reliance on the private
sector. That is one of the subjects of the hearing, and to create
incentives for agencies to search for more economical ways to procure
goods and services. That hearing will be very informative as to this
debate. It should include this amendment, and that is where I think we
should consider this amendment, not here on the appropriations
legislation.
So I think I do not see any problem with recommending to my
colleagues, with something of this broad a scope--and this is not an
insignificant amendment, this is a major step in whatever direction it
would be leading and is very, very far-reaching--I think, to wait 1
week until the head of OMB can give his testimony and give his opinion
on this and indicate to us how this would operate at the executive
branch level. It seems to me, that is not a delay that is intolerable.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I
think it is very far-reaching. It is not an innocuous little amendment;
it is one that is very far-reaching, and after we know the scope of it
better, it might be something I could well support. But I would like to
have Mr. Koskinen's testimony on it and have it before the committee so
we could explore, in a little bit more detail, the ramifications of
this or the implications of it before we vote on it in an
appropriations bill acting on the floor today.
Mr. President, for all those reasons, I oppose the legislation and
hope my colleagues support that position. I yield the floor.
[[Page S10284]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SANTORUM). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague
from Ohio. Let me see if I cannot respond to some of them.
First of all, they talk about a hearing. We have delayed hearings
twice now. We have asked for hearings, had them set up, they have been
delayed--once at Senator Glenn's request. I think it is time we move
forward with this proposition.
It is a narrow amendment. It is not a broad amendment. It is not a
wide-reaching amendment. As a matter of fact, it deals only with
circular No. A-76 and the language there where OMB has said, effective
October 1997, ``The cost comparison requirements of this supplemental
handbook will not apply to existing or renewed ISSA or consolidation of
commercial services.''
This is not the broad bill that we have asked for a hearing on. It is
not nearly as broad as I think it ought to be to effect this idea that
we ought to be doing these things in the private sector. This notion
that somehow we are going to get more efficiency out of doing it out of
Government is one, I think, we have gotten long past. So we will be
doing that, and we will be going further. This one only has to do with
the changes that have been made by OMB.
The idea, of course, that it will affect the letter that the Senator
read from the Department of Defense probably is not applicable in the
first place. However, we have, in order to make sure that is not the
case, amended and changed--modified the amendment with the language
that ``the regulations would not apply to contingency operations
associated with a national emergency.'' Clearly, I think that does
that.
I want to interject here to ask unanimous consent that Senator
Stevens, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and
Senator Frahm be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. The idea that is far-sweeping and far-ranging is that
this has been in place for all these years until now. OMB simply
changed it. It puts it back where it was, before OMB changed this. So
the idea that it is an unknown is simply not true. It is simply not the
case. It simply says to OMB, you cannot enforce these new rules that
you put out that have changed what we have been doing now forever. So
that is really what it amounts to.
I think it is very important that we move on these. We have had some
other debates today about whether there have been hearings or whether
there have not been hearings. It depends on which side you are on as to
whether that is important. But the fact is, this is a relatively minor
change and one that simply puts us back to where it is. If, in the
hearings that subsequently occur, there is evidence that the OMB change
is appropriate, then I urge the committee to authorize, in committee,
them to do that. In the meantime, I think we ought not remove the
requirements, the simple requirements that if you are going to offer a
service to another agency--not services for yourself, offer them for
another agency, which is a growing tendency within Government--that,
first of all, you have to consider the outrageous notion of seeing if
there is an alternative that is less expensive. That is really not very
difficult. It is really not a new idea. Most people who do significant
work contracting try to get more than one idea of what it costs. That
is what we are talking about here.
As a matter of fact, I mentioned the idea that the statute on
efficiency continues to exist. The problem is OMB is not abiding by it.
That is the problem. It does continue to exist. It does say, yet, in
the statute, that we ought to be doing this stuff in the private
sector. The problem is, it is not being adhered to. The procurement act
provides that an agency ``can provide another agency with goods and
services if the goods and services cannot be provided by contract as
conveniently or cheaply as a commercial enterprise.'' That is the law,
but the rule negates that. That is what we are talking about. It is not
a widespread change, not an unknown. It simply says we ought to go by
what it says in the economy act, and not change it by OMB.
So, I suppose if we are going to deal with a broader bill, which I
hope we do--I hope we make some conversions more to private sector
use--then I agree we ought to take a look at it in the committee. This
part of it, however, simply says, live under the law. It simply says,
do not change the law. Go ahead and ask that, when you want to provide
services to another agency, that the private sector ought to be
examined first to see if, indeed, that is a more efficient and more
effective way to provide those services.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. THOMAS. We will ask when there are more people here.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Wyoming
yield?
Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I yield.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after consultation with the Democratic
leader and with the hope we can get a finite list and begin to work
through these amendments, as we have done over the past couple of
weeks, so we can get an agreement on amendments that we must, in fact,
have votes on, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only
first-degree amendments remaining in order to the Treasury-Postal
Service appropriations bill; that they be subject to second-degree
amendments which are relevant to the first-degree amendment; that they
may be offered in the first degree or in the second degree to a
committee amendment; that the committee amendments be subject to
second-degree amendments which are either on the list or relevant to an
amendment on the list, if that amendment has been offered to the
committee amendment; that no motions to recommit be in order and that
upon the disposition of these amendments and the committee amendments
the bill be read for a third time.
Mr. President, I submit for the Record the list. It is at the desk.
The distinguished Democratic leader has a copy of this list.
The list is as follows:
Republican Amendments to H.R. 3756, the Treasury-Postal Appropriations
Bill
Abraham--Relevant.
Shelby--Managers amendments.
Shelby--Authority for GSA to work with Smithsonian to
determine office space.
Stevens--Relevant.
Stevens--(1) Allow ACIR to use non-appropriated funds; (2)
IRS commission.
Stevens--(1) Kodiak, Alaska Port of Entry Designation; (2)
FOIA/privacy.
Grassley--Add $28 million to USCS; REDUCE TSM.
Inhofe--Strike Section 404(FPS position repeal).
Thomas--Inter-service Support Agreement.
Hatfield--Localflex pilot program.
Hatfield--Provide $1,450,000 for renovation of Pioneer
Courthouse in Portland, Oregon.
Faircloth--(1) Prohibit IRS from using color printing
except when describing tax law changes; (2) Social Security
Administration.
Helms--Health care provider incentive plans.
Brown--Financial Management Bill.
Grams--Improve IRS telephone service.
Hutchison--Border Stations.
Kassebaum--(1) Job Training; (2) Relevant.
Lott--(1) Education; Relevant.
Lott--(1) Terrorism; Relevant.
Lott--(1) Drugs; Relevant.
Lott--(1) IRS; Relevant.
Nickles--re: Welfare.
Nickles--Workers rights.
Nickles--Presidential imunities.
Nickles--Relevant.
Hatch--Relevant.
Hatch--Relevant.
McCain--HIDTA Funding.
McCain--Federal overtime pay.
McCain--Udall Foundation.
McCain--Relevant.
Jeffords--Relevant.
Domenici--Relevant.
Ashcroft--Working flexibility.
Ashcroft--Relevant.
Thomas--Limit fund for Fed. Agencies to furnish
commercially available services to other Fed. Agencies.
Coverdell--Relevant.
Coverdell--Relevant.
Gramm--Border stations.
Thompson--GSA telephone pilot project.
D'Amato--TWA crash.
D'Amato--Commemorative coin.
Warner--GSA building security.
Inhofe--Sec. 404.
Lott--Relevant.
Lott--Relevant.
TPO Amendments
Biden--(1) Drugs; (2) Drugs.
[[Page S10285]]
Bingaman--Energy savings.
Boxer--(1) Junk guns; (2) Pensions.
Bryan--(1) COLA for judges; (2) White House Travel (w/
Levin/Reid); (3) Congressional pension.
Byrd--(1) Telecommuting center/W.VA; (2) Relevant.
Daschle--(1) Congressional employees health insurance; (2)
Education; (3) Arson & Explosive repository; (4) Relevant;
(5) Relevant; (6) Presidential immunities; (7) Welfare.
Dorgan--Indian Housing.
Feingold--Committee amdt p 129.
Feinstein--(1) Hate crimes (w/Wyden); (2) Relevant; (3)
Tagents.
Graham--(1) Medicare receipts using emergency care; (2)
Welfare formula fairness.
Hollings--Death benefits.
Kennedy--(1) Physicians gag (w/Wyden); (2) Education; (3)
Workers protection; (4) Legal services.
Kerrey--(1) Managers package; (2) IRS review; (3) Relevant.
Kerry-Feinstein--(1) Relevant; (2) Tagents.
Kohl--Gun free school zones.
Lautenberg--Domestic abusers guns.
Levin--(1) White House travel (w/Reid); (2) SoS U.S./Japan
auto.
Moseley-Braun--Age discrimination.
Reid--(1) White House Travel (w/Levin); (2) Judges' pay.
Simon--(1) Desalinization; (2) Pension auditing.
Wyden--Physician's gag (W/Kennedy).
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to say right here that if there
are any additions made to this list, it will be only after consultation
and agreement between the two leaders.
That is the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his cooperation. It
is a rather lengthy list, unfortunately, but now we have, at least, a
list we can work on. Hopefully, we will both be able to work through
getting these amendments removed if they are not really relevant to
this bill.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say, the majority leader and
I have had the opportunity in the last couple hours to talk to our
Members and to urge their cooperation in coming forth with prospective
amendments. I would emphasize that they are prospective. I hope that in
many cases Senators would not feel compelled to offer them. Our hope is
that we can resolve this bill some time in the not-too-distant future.
I hope that all of our colleagues can work with us to limit the list
of amendments, to limit the debate on the amendments, once they are
called up, and to see if we cannot complete our work. I have asked
Members of our leadership to work with our caucus in order to put this
list together now in a realistic fashion. And I hope that only in those
cases where Senators truly felt that it was essential that the
amendment be offered on this bill, that it be done so.
So I am urging cooperation, in concert with the majority leader, in
the hope that we can come to some completion successfully on this bill
some time in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, did we get unanimous consent agreement on
that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
____________________